Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 83 (TS)

Gujjula Padma v. State of Telangana

2021-03-17

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2021
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “......calling for the entire record connected to Order in File No. D1/4936/2016, dated 31.01.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2, examine the same and set it aside after declaring the same as illegal, irregular, irrational, without jurisdiction, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 and rules framed thereunder and offends Articles 14, 21 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently, restore the order, dated 19.11.2016 in Appeal Case No. D/19395/2015 passed by the respondent No. 3 and also order, dated 23.02.2015 in No. B/2730/2014 passed by the respondent No. 4, by continuing entire record of rights including Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed in favour of the petitioners for an extent of lands admeasuring Ac. 3.00 guntas covered by Sy. No. 760 and Ac. 1.00 guntas covered by Sy. No. 733/B, situated in Nusthulapur Village, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District....” 2. According to the petitioners, they are absolute owners and possessors of the subject lands having purchased the same from their vendor, namely Allenki Bhadraiah through sale-deed, dated 02.02.1990. Since the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. That the petitioner No. 1 alienated an extent of Ac. 0.28 guntas in Sy. No. 733/B and Ac. 0.26 guntas in Sy. No. 758 in favour of petitioner No. 2 through registered sale-deed, dated 27.11.2002, vide document No. 7312/2002. In turn, the petitioner No. 2 executed registered Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney with possession, dated 08.07.2004, vide document No. 7081/2004 in favour of one Narahari Jagga Reddy, a resident of Jyothinagar, Karimnagar. Subsequently, the said lands were alienated to petitioner No. 3 by way of registered sale-deed, dated 31.12.2004, vide document No. 13497/2004. while so, the respondent No. 5 filed an application, dated 26.11.2014 before the Tahsildar, Thimmapur Mandal, Karimnagar District, respondent No. 4 herein, for correction of Record of Rights on the ground that she had purchased the subject lands prior to her marriage from vendor, namely Allenki Bhadraiah through registered sale-deed, dated 19.07.1990, vide document No. 1860/1990 and her name is mutated in revenue records during the year 1991-1992. Considering the rival claim over the subject property by the petitioners and the respondent No. 5, the respondent No. 4, after hearing the parties, passed orders on 23.02.2015 directing both the parties to settle their title dispute before the competent civil court. Subsequently, the respondent No. 5 has filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the subject land against the petitioners and two others in O.S. No. 37 of 2015 on the file of District Judge at Karimnagar and the same is pending for adjudication. However, being aggrieved by the proceedings of the respondent No. 4, dated 23.02.2015, the respondent No. 5 carried the matter in appeal under Section 5-A of the Act before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar Division, the respondent No. 3 herein. Even the respondent No. 3, by order dated 19.11.2016, advised the parties to settle the dispute before the civil Court and also directed the respondent No. 4 to maintain status quo and not to effect any changes in the entries in the pahanies in respect of the subject land. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent No. 5 filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act before the Joint Collector, Karimnagar. However, the respondent No. 2, by order dated 31.01.2018 allowed the revision petition setting aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, respondent No. 3, dated 19.11.2016. Hence, the present writ petition by the petitioners. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader for official respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. Perused the material available on record. 3. The relevant portion of the impugned order, dated 31.01.2018 reads as under: “The presumption of the Revenue Divisional Officer is not correct. The suit pending in the Court is not against the government and he has also came to finding that the records are tampered changing the father’s name of the Revision petitioner to husband’s name of the Respondent No. 1. Hence, it attracts the provisions of rectification of wrong entries in the revenue records. As per instructions of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad in Ref. No. ROR/128/99, dated 14.10.1999, the Recording authority i.e. the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Collector are competent for rectification of wrong entries for any period, after following the procedure. Hence, it attracts the provisions of rectification of wrong entries in the revenue records. As per instructions of the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad in Ref. No. ROR/128/99, dated 14.10.1999, the Recording authority i.e. the Tahsildar, Revenue Divisional Officer and the Collector are competent for rectification of wrong entries for any period, after following the procedure. In the instant case, it is clearly noticed, the father’s name of the revision petitioner has been tampered with the husband’s name of the Respondent No. 1, taking advantage of their similar names. In view of the above, the Tahsildar, Thimmapur is instructed to rectify the wrong entries made in the records and incorporate the father’s name of the Revision petitioner and accordingly the orders of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Karimnagar, dated 19.11.2016 are set aside.” 4. The provisions of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 deal with the manner and method of preparation of Record of Rights. Under the provisions of the Act, if a person is aggrieved of an entry in the revenue records, in respect of the land in which he is claiming right, title and interest, the remedy available for him is either to file an appeal under Section 5-B or a revision under Section 9 of the Act, besides that, he can approach the civil Court and file a suit for declaration of title and for correction of entries. If the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff, necessary changes will be carried out in the revenue records. The decree of the Civil Court is not only binding on the parties to the litigation, but also on the revenue authorities. 5. In the case on hand, the respondent No. 5 has already filed a suit against the petitioners herein and others seeking declaration of title in respect of the subject land. It is not only settled principle of law, but Section 8(2) of the Act also emphasises that the entries in the revenue records are always subject to any adjudication by a civil Court. It is not only settled principle of law, but Section 8(2) of the Act also emphasises that the entries in the revenue records are always subject to any adjudication by a civil Court. Inasmuch as the respondent No. 5 has already chosen the remedy of declaratory relief by filing suit in O.S. No. 37 of 2015 on the file of District Judge at Karimnagar, it was not proper on the part of the revisional authority i.e. the respondent No. 2 to interfere with and set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, respondent No. 3. The findings recorded by the respondent No. 2 in his order, extracted hereinabove, are not sustainable under law. For, having filed the suit for declaration of title, the respondent No. 5 cannot seek any rectification of the revenue records until and unless the suit for declaratory relief is decreed in her favour. 6. Moreover, this Court, in number of occasions, held that the quasi-judicial authority should not intervene in the matters where the parties, with respect to title dispute, have approached the civil court. The revenue authorities should refrain from passing orders and wait the result of the suit pending between the parties. This Court, while dealing with the similar issue in P. Sambasiva Rao vs. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad, 2009 (4) ALD 663 categorically held as under: “(7) The scope of appeal or revision against an order passed under Section 5-A of the Act, is limited. The authorities have only to verify whether the prescribed procedure has been followed and whether there exists any legal or factual infirmity in the proceedings. It is impermissible to pronounce upon the title of the parties, in such proceedings. Disputes, touching upon title, can be decided only by the civil Court. Section 8(2) of the Act, in a way, provides that any orders passed or proceedings issued under the Act, would be subject to adjudication in a suit that may be filed by the aggrieved parties. There is nothing in that provision to indicate that the proceedings initiated under Section 5-A are kept out side its scope.” 7. For the forgoing discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 31.01.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2 is, hereby, set aside. For the forgoing discussion, the impugned order is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 31.01.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2 is, hereby, set aside. Consequently, the order dated 19.11.2016 passed by the respondent No. 3 shall stand restored. 9. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.